Torts—Intentional Interference with Contractual Relationship—Malicious Interference with Attorney-Client Relationship

The Washington Supreme court recently decided a case having personal as well as professional interest to the legal profession. Plaintiff, an attorney, was requested by a widow to make arrangements whereby she could continue her deceased husband\u27s business, and initiated probate of the husband\u27s estate. Defendants, tax consultants and certified public accountants, were later retained by the widow to perform the estate\u27s tax work. At defendant\u27s urging, the widow selected another attorney from a list furnished by defendants and terminated plaintiff\u27s employment. Plaintiff, upon inquiry, was informed by defendants that they hired and fired attorneys for their clients. Plaintiff sued for damages in the amount of his expectable attorney\u27s fees, alleging that defendants had intentionally interfered with his employment contract. On appeal from a judgment for plaintiff, held: The defense of privilege is not available to a third party who maliciously interferes with a contract terminable at will. Calbom v. Knudtzon, 65 Wash. Dec.2d 137, 396 P.2d 148 (1964)